Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Printed on recycled paper
SPECIAL PUBLICATION
SP-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
DECEMBER 2018
APPLICABILITY OF DESALINATION SYSTEMS
TO DROUGHT RELIEF APPLICATIONS
Cody M. Reese, PE
This page is intentionally left blank.
iii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FORM APPROVED
OMB NO. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From – To)
11-12-2018 Special Publication November 2018 – December 2018
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Applicability of Desalination Systems to Drought Relief Applications
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Cody M. Reese, PE
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center 1000 23rd Ave, Port Hueneme, CA, 93043
SP-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center 1000 23rd Ave, Port Hueneme, CA, 93043
EXWC
11. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
SP-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
Congress tasked the Navy to write a report on “desalinization technology’s application for defense and national security purposes to provide drought relief to areas impacted by sharp declines in water resources.” Due to the number of variations in terminology, technology, and potential scenarios, this report will be generalized in
several areas. Nevertheless, the general answer is: desalination processes have application to drought relief scenarios. Fresh water is required for nearly all human
endeavors including drinking, hygiene, agriculture, and many industrial processes. As such, if a saline water source is the best available during a contingency, then desalination is fundamentally required. However, there are numerous desalination technologies, each with different characteristics and applicability to different
scenarios. The appropriate water treatment system for a contingency will depend on numerous factors such as source water availability and composition, desired
output quantity, desired product water quality, anticipated length of operation, urgency of need, available infrastructure, available logistics support, available
personnel, local security considerations, and local regulatory considerations. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Engineering and Expeditionary
Warfare Center (EXWC) evaluated the feasibility of deploying portable desalination systems for contingency response applications at naval installations around the world, and the results are nominally extensible to civil water contingencies.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Desalination, desalinization, water, drought, humanitarian assistance, disaster response, contingency, purification, treatment, saline, salt, brackish
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Cody M. Reese
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
UU 68
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U U 805-982-1288 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iv
This page is intentionally left blank.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Congress tasked the Navy to write a report on “desalinization technology’s application for
defense and national security purposes to provide drought relief to areas impacted by sharp
declines in water resources.” Due to the number of variations in terminology, technology, and
potential scenarios, this report will be generalized in several areas. Nevertheless, the general
answer is: desalination processes have application to drought relief scenarios. Fresh water is
required for nearly all human endeavors including drinking, hygiene, agriculture, and many
industrial processes. As such, if a saline water source is determined to be the best available water
source during a contingency, then desalination is fundamentally required. However, there are
numerous desalination technologies, each with different characteristics and applicability to
different scenarios. The appropriate water treatment system for a contingency will depend on
numerous factors such as source water availability and composition, the desired output quantity,
the desired product water quality, the anticipated length of system operation, the urgency of need,
available infrastructure, available logistics support, available operating personnel, local security
considerations, and local regulatory considerations. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC) has evaluated the feasibility
of deploying portable desalination systems for contingency response applications at naval
installations around the world. Though the Navy scenario is limited in scope, the results are
extensible to the broader set of civil water contingencies.
vi
This page is intentionally left blank.
vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EUWP Expeditionary Unit Water Purifier
FNC Future Naval Capability
LWP Lightweight Water Purifier
LWPS Lightweight Water Purification System
MF Microfiltration
MMF Multimedia Filter
NAVFAC EXWC Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center
NSF National Science Foundation
R&D Research and Development
RO Reverse Osmosis
ROWPU Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit
SUWP Small Unit Water Purifier
TWPS Tactical Water Purification System
UF Ultrafiltration
USA United States Army
USN United States Navy
USMC United States Marine Corps
viii
This page is intentionally left blank.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................1 2.1 Desalination ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Drought ................................................................................................................................ 4
3.0 SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................................4
3.1 Source Water Availability.................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Water Quantity ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 Anticipated Contingency Duration ...................................................................................... 6
3.5 Urgency of Need .................................................................................................................. 6 3.6 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.7 Logistics Support ................................................................................................................. 6 3.8 Available Operating Personnel ............................................................................................ 7
3.9 Local Security ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.10 Local Regulations ................................................................................................................ 7 3.11 Overall Water Cycle ............................................................................................................ 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................9
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A NAVFAC TECHNICAL REPORT - TR-EXWC-EX-1901 FEASIBILITY
STUDY OF PORTABLE WATER DESALINATION SYSTEMS FOR WATER
CONTINGENCIES AT REMOTE NAVAL INSTALLATIONS A-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Approximate characteristics of expeditionary water desalination systems. ..................... 3 Table 2. Approximate characteristics of developmental shipboard desalination systems. ............. 3 Table 3. Approximate characteristics of various naval water treatment facilities. ......................... 3
x
This page is intentionally left blank.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Congress tasked the Navy to write a report on “desalinization technology’s application for
defense and national security purposes to provide drought relief to areas impacted by sharp
declines in water resources.” Due to the number of variations in terminology, technology, and
potential scenarios this report will be generalized in several areas. Nevertheless, the general answer
is: desalination processes have application to drought relief scenarios. The bottom line is that fresh
water is required for nearly all human endeavors including drinking, hygiene, agriculture, and
many industrial processes. As such, if a saline water source is determined to be the best available
water source during a contingency, then desalination is fundamentally required. However, there
are numerous desalination technologies, each with different characteristics and applicability to
different scenarios. The relevant question in this case is which desalination technologies and
systems are appropriate for contingency drought-relief applications. Unfortunately, the answer to
this question is a very complicated “it depends” based on the specific circumstances of each unique
water contingency. In practice, it depends on the source water availability and composition, the
desired output quantity, the desired product water quality, the anticipated length of system
operation, the urgency of need, available infrastructure, available logistics support, available
operating personnel, local security considerations, local regulatory considerations, and other
factors.
Our public utilities system is an extremely reliable source of clean water, to the point that
domestic water availability has become an afterthought for most people. It is truly extraordinary
that we can turn on almost any tap in any building in the country and have a practically unlimited
supply of freshwater. Clean, fresh water is among the most important commodities in the history
of the world, and yet this resource is available in America for approximately $0.0015/gallon
(American Water Works Association 2002). A downside of this is that we have become so
accustomed to the ubiquitous availability of water that even minor disruptions can have significant
negative effects.
The Navy operates and maintains several water treatment facilities at bases around the
world. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Engineering and Expeditionary
Warfare Center (EXWC) has evaluated the feasibility of deploying portable desalination systems
for contingency response applications at naval installations around the world. The results of the
Navy analysis are nominally extensible to the broader set of civil water contingencies. In the
context of civil response, one of the largest challenges to water relief operations is scale, with large
communities potentially requiring hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day. This presents
an extreme challenge for any water treatment system, contingency or not. The results of the EXWC
analysis are included as Appendix A.
2.0 BACKGROUND
This chapter includes basic information on desalination systems as well as a brief
discussion of the term “drought” to prepare the reader for the following discussion of water
contingency considerations. There is a significant amount of ongoing research into desalination
technologies performed by a wide range of private, academic, and government scientists; however,
most prototype systems are unsuitable for contingency response due to their capacity and
2
reliability. As such this discussion is generally focused on the characteristics of currently available
systems.
2.1 Desalination
Desalination is an effect—the removal of salts from water—that is achieved by a wide
variety of processes ranging from the natural hydrologic cycle to man-made industrial processes
such as distillation and reverse osmosis. Each approach has pros and cons such as energy
consumption, reliability, maintainability, ease of operation, etc. The most common industrial
processes for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis. Distillation is a phase-change
process which entails the removal of contaminates by changing water into the vapor phase through
manipulation of temperature and/or pressure, and then condensing the vapor back into clean water.
Reverse osmosis is a pressure-driven process in which salt-water is pressurized to a level higher
than the osmotic pressure of the solution, and water molecules are driven across a semi-permeable
membrane to produce clean water. Both of these processes are employed around the world at a
public utilities scale. In addition to distillation and reverse osmosis, there are a multitude of other
desalination methods including forward osmosis, capacitive deionization, chemical desalination,
shock electrodialysis, and more, all at various stages of technological maturity and development.
The Navy operates a variety of water purification systems with desalination capability,
including deployable expeditionary systems, shipboard systems, and permanent-infrastructure
water treatment facilities. Tables 1–3 show the approximate physical, operating, and performance
characteristics of various currently-fielded and developmental water purification systems.
3
Table 1. Approximate characteristics of expeditionary water desalination systems.
a. Systems indicated with an * asterisk include direct-drive diesel powered pumps. Power requirement is approximated. b. Some systems include integrated power, others require external generators. Some systems are containerized, others are skid mounted. Size and weight are not a directly comparable. c. USMC has ~220 LWPS units and ~300 TWPS units. USN has ~250 LWPS systems and ~14 TWPS
Table 2. Approximate characteristics of developmental shipboard desalination systems.
Table 3. Approximate characteristics of various naval water treatment facilities.
EUWP = Expeditionary Unit Water Purifier FNC = Future Naval Capability LWP = Lightweight Water Purifier LWPS = Lightweight Water Purification System MF = Microfiltration
MMF = Multimedia Filter R&D = Research and Development RO = Reverse Osmosis ROWPU = Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit SUWP = Small Unit Water Purifier
TWPS = Tactical Water Purification System UF = Ultrafiltration USA = United States Army USN = United States Navy USMC = United States Marine Corps
4
2.2 Drought
A drought can be caused by a variety of natural or man-made causes, can emerge rapidly
or slowly over time, and can be short or long duration. This presents a wide range of potential
water contingency situations, and an associated range of contingency response approaches,
systems, and technologies. Though the term drought is generally understood, there are a wide
variety of specific definitions which can influence the nature of a response. Wilhite and Glantz
(1985) reviewed more than 150 published definitions of drought to further investigate the
phenomenon, and discovered that both the occurrence and severity of drought are difficult to
determine based on the variety of definitions in the literature. They categorized definitions as
conceptual, which are “formulated in general terms to identify the boundaries of the concept,” and
as operational, which “attempt to identify the onset, severity, and termination of drought episodes”
(Wilhite and Glantz 1985). Conceptual definitions are generally aligned across multiple sources,
that a drought is a “deficiency of precipitation that results in water shortage for some activity (e.g.,
plant growth) or for some group (e.g., farmer)” (Wilhite and Glantz 1985). However, there are a
tremendously diverse set of criteria and opinions in the literature for when a drought starts, ends,
and how severe it is. In our case, “drought relief to areas impacted by sharp declines in water
resources” may be better considered as response to emergent water contingencies where locally
available water resources are projected to be unable to meet local demands with currently operating
treatment processes and distribution networks, for a set period of time.
3.0 SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
There are a variety of considerations that will impact the applicability of a water
purification technology to contingency applications. Each factor is dependent on the unique
characteristics of the contingency at hand. As such, it is impossible to develop a universally
applicable contingency water system. The following factors must be considered when selecting a
contingency response system.
3.1 Source Water Availability
One of the first considerations that will drive the choice of a contingency water purification
system is the quantity, location, and composition of available water. This could be groundwater,
surface water, ocean water, or reclaimed/recycled water from domestic, agricultural, or industrial
processes. Most water will need to be treated, though not all water will need to be desalinated.
Some water may need specific treatment processes to achieve desired product-quality levels.
Source water availability is highly dependent on the specific location and conditions of a water
contingency.
3.2 Water Quantity
A primary concern in a water contingency is the quantity of water required, and there is
tremendous variability in this factor. Small communities needing water only for human
consumption may require hundreds of gallons per day; however, large regions with human
5
consumption, agriculture, and industrial requirements may require hundreds of millions of gallons
per day. For example, Californians use around 181 gallons of fresh water per day in total for all
end-use purposes (Brandt, et al. 2014) and San Diego County is home to around 3.3 million people
(United States Census Bureau, 2016). This equates to a total water demand of approximately 597
million gallons per day to serve the total needs of San Diego County (including agriculture and
industry). To illustrate the challenge associated with this magnitude of response, consider that the
total combined Navy and Marine Corps inventory of expeditionary water purification systems that
are capable of desalination includes approximately 570 Lightweight Water Purification System
(LWPS) units and 314 Tactical Water Purification System (TWPS) units as shown in note c of
Table 1. Running all of these units simultaneously for a 20-hour operating day would produce
approximately 10 million gallons of product water—well short of the nearly 600 million gallons
required by San Diego County.
It should be noted that the required product quantity will depend on whether a contingency
response system is responsible for supplying all the water for the needs of the community, or
whether it is part of a diversified water supply. In addition, the previous calculation discounts the
potential for reduction of the water requirement due to enhanced conservation and rationing during
contingency periods, as well as the fact that all product water does not need to meet the same
quality restrictions. At a minimum, humans require approximately 0.8 gallons per day for survival
and 4 gallons per day for cooking and hygiene purposes (Sphere 2011) ... far less than the 181
gallons per day we currently use.
3.3 Water Quality
One of the most important considerations in a water contingency response system is the
required product quality. Water quality requirements will be driven by the end-use of the water.
Human consumption and hygiene applications will necessitate a certain quality level. Water for
agricultural use may require a lower quality level, and industrial processes (such as chemical
processing or power-plant cooling) may require lower or higher quality levels depending on the
specific need.
In addition to end-use, water quality levels are dependent on the anticipated duration of
exposure. For example, most deployable military water purification systems are evaluated in
accordance with the National Science Foundation (NSF) P248 Emergency Military Operations
Microbiological Water Purifiers test protocol; however, test protocols such as these are generally
tailored to cover short-term consumption of water in the field by a predominantly young and
healthy military population. As such, these standards (and the associated expeditionary military
water purification systems) may not be suitable to address long-term consumption by the general
population, including the very young and elderly in various states of health.
Domestic drinking water regulations are established by Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and test standards are developed by the NSF. For example, the EPA promulgates the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, and the NSF publishes seven Point of Use / Point
of Entry standards for system certification. In addition, state, regional, and local governments may
also establish water quality requirements.
6
3.4 Anticipated Contingency Duration
The anticipated length of contingency response will inform the most appropriate type of
water purification system for the application. Some systems are designed to run at the edge of the
performance envelope and may necessitate more attentive system operation and more frequent
maintenance. These systems are usually based on design compromises which trade filter life to
minimize system size and weight for deployability purposes, and would not be appropriate for
continuous operation in support of a long-term contingency. Other systems are designed with long-
term use in mind, and have lower filter loading rates and other design parameters set to maximize
system longevity.
3.5 Urgency of Need
Some water contingencies evolve slowly over time while others are rapid-onset events
which require immediate response efforts. The urgency of need will have a significant impact on
the choice of contingency response system. Do we have 24 hours to respond, or a year to plan?
Rapid onset crises must be served with currently available systems; however, slowly developing
contingencies may be able to employ site-specific water contingency systems matched to the local
needs. In all cases, the contingency response may vary over time, and the system deployed on the
first day may not be the system which remains in use for the duration of required support.
3.6 Infrastructure
The local infrastructure has a major influence on the type of system which will be
suitable for a water contingency. This applies to the existing water sourcing, treatment, storage,
and distribution infrastructure as well as the local transportation infrastructure and power
infrastructure. A contingency water system may need to integrate with local distribution
infrastructure, or the local plumbing could be a contributor to the contingency, as was the case in
the 2016 Flint, Michigan water crisis. This could necessitate contingency water storage and
distribution systems in addition to water purification capabilities. During the response to the
2010 Haiti earthquake, one of the key issues was how to store and distribute the clean water
produced by relief systems, as early production capacity exceeded storage capacity. In addition,
the local transportation infrastructure must be able to support the mobility and emplacement of a
deployable water purification system to the affected region. Lastly, much has been written on the
water-energy nexus. The local power infrastructure must be able to support the power
requirements of the contingency water system or a contingency power system must also be
deployed.
3.7 Logistics Support
Locally available logistics support will influence the type of system that is appropriate for
the contingency. All water purification systems require maintenance. The availability of spare
parts and consumables, and the ability to get them to the required location when needed will factor
in to selecting the best system for the application.
7
3.8 Available Operating Personnel
Nearly all water purification systems require trained personnel to set up, and most require
full-time system operators. Some systems can be operated remotely; however, they require trained
personnel onsite to perform maintenance when necessary. The availability of trained personnel
will factor into the type of system which is suitable for any given water contingency.
3.9 Local Security
Because it is such a critical commodity, water contingencies can result in significant local
instability. Depending on the nature of the contingency, there may be a high level of civil unrest.
In this type of scenario, relief systems and workers may be targeted by hostile groups seeking to
advance a political or other agenda. In addition, components of a water purification system may
be pilfered by vandals in an attempt to capitalize on the valuable hardware and materials.
3.10 Local Regulations
Local regulations may influence everything from water quality to environmental impact
constraints. This could affect aspects of system employment including system siting, water source
availability, and discharge quality, quantity, and rate. Some localities may place significant
restrictions on the handling of purification byproducts (such as brine discharge) and what sources
of water can be recycled (such as grey-water), which can significantly limit the water available for
purification. Local regulations and permits are cited as one of the major considerations and
schedule drivers to the implementation of local desalination plants in California (Mulligan 2016).
3.11 Overall Water Cycle
Desalination or other treatment of water is only one phase of a significantly broader water
cycle. When selecting a system for contingency response, the whole water cycle must be taken
into consideration. This includes: water source identification and quality analysis; raw water
collection, transport, and storage; water treatment; water treatment byproduct handling; product
water quality analysis; product water storage and quality maintenance; product water transport and
distribution; water use/consumption; and water waste management (possibly to include collection
and recycling).
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Water contingencies can result from a variety of natural and man-made causes and the
production of fresh water will be required in nearly all response activities. As such, desalination is
a very relevant process to water contingency scenarios. Desalination is achievable by a variety of
processes at various levels of technical maturity and scales of production. Desalination systems
range from individual-scale systems for survival kits to multi-million gallons per day water
treatment plants for public utilities applications. The most common industrial desalination
processes are distillation and reverse osmosis. Every water contingency is unique, and as such,
contingency water response will be site-specific and application-specific, and not all applications
will require desalination.
8
Major challenges for civil-scale water contingency response include the required volume
of clean water (and the associated energy required to support water production), the availability of
source water, the required product water quality, integration with existing infrastructure, the ability
to store and handle clean product water, and the potential duration of contingency response efforts.
Contingency response efforts for any given scenario will evolve over time and the system
employed on day one may not be the one used throughout the contingency. Lastly, conservation
efforts can drastically reduce the required water volume in contingency scenarios and should be
practiced as a matter of course to preserve water as a natural resource.
9
REFERENCES
American Water Works Association. Is Water Free? American Water Works Association. 2002.
https://www.fcwa.org/story_of_water/html/costs.htm (accessed June 6, 2017).
Brandt, Justin, Michelle Sneed, Laurel Lynn Rogers, Loren F. Metzger, Diane Rewis, and Sally House.
Water Use in California, 2014. US Geological Survey. 2014. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/
(accessed June 6, 2017).
Mulligan, Susan. How to Implement Seawater Desalination. Thousand Oaks, CA. Calleguas Municipal
Water District. December 1, 2016
Sphere. The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response.
2011 Edition. Rugby, Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing, 2011.
United States Census Bureau. Community Facts - San Diego County, California. July 1, 2016.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk (accessed
June 7, 2017).
Wilhite, Donald, and Michael Glantz. 1985. “Understanding the Drought Phenomenon: The Role of
Definitions.” Water International 10(3): 111-120
10
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
NAVFAC TECHNICAL REPORT - TR-EXWC-EX-1901
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PORTABLE WATER DESALINATION
SYSTEMS FOR WATER CONTINGENCIES AT REMOTE NAVAL
INSTALLATIONS
This page is intentionally left blank.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.
Printed on recycled paper
TECHNICAL REPORT
TR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
DECEMBER 2018
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PORTABLE WATER
DESALINATION SYSTEMS FOR WATER CONTINGENCIES
AT REMOTE NAVY INSTALLATIONS
Brittany Arias
John Brito
Bryan Long
Rob Nordahl
Cody Reese
Joseph Saenz
Bill Varnava
This page is intentionally left blank.
iii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FORM APPROVED
OMB NO. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT
RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From – To)
13-12-2018 Technical Report January 2017 – September 2017
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PORTABLE WATER DESALINATION SYSTEMS FOR WATER CONTINGENCIES AT REMOTE NAVY INSTALLATIONS
N/A
5b. GRANT NUMBER
N/A
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
N/A
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Brittany Arias, John Brito, Bryan Long, Rob Nordahl, Cody Reese,
Joseph Saenz, Bill Varnava
1573508
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
NAVFAC EXWC ATTN: EX531 1000 23rd Ave, Bldg. 1100 Port Hueneme, CA 93043
TR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
NAVFAC Expeditionary Program Office (NEPO) 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 100 Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 20374-5065
NEPO
11. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
TR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EX-1901
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
None.
14. ABSTRACT
The Navy operates several water treatment facilities at remote installations around the world. Water contingencies at these locations
can result in significant risk to personnel, loss of mission capability, and cost to recover. This study considers the feasibility of
employing mobile desalination systems to support water contingencies at remote Navy installations. Most Navy installations that
currently produce their own potable water do not have simple, reliable backup systems to sustain production if a water plant becomes
inoperable. This study considers the viability of developing, strategically pre-positioning, and maintaining such assets, making them
available to provide potable water from various water sources including ocean desalination and brackish water in support of global
water contingencies. This study will analyze the total costs, benefits, and risks associated with maintaining three types of water
system contingency response capabilities. Analysis includes consideration for whether the required equipment is located centrally or
on-site, and whether it is owned by the Navy or leased during contingencies.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Contingency, desalination, water, utilities, purification
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Bill Varnava
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
UU 46
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)
U U U 805-982-6640
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iv
This page is intentionally left blank.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) sponsored the NAVFAC Engineering and
Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC) to study the feasibility of using Low Energy Contingency
Desalination (LECD) systems as a potential solution to provide potable water to remote U.S. Navy
installations during water contingencies.
The supply of potable water as a resource in and around U.S. Navy installations worldwide is vital
to the survival of Department of Defense (DoD) personnel and continued mission effectiveness of
the Navy. Water supply infrastructure depends on numerous personnel and conditions. The
unpredictable nature of these dependencies can result in reduced water processing capability at
any time. Equipment breakdown, operator error, or natural disasters can compromise a water
supply system. In the last 20 years, water supply system failures occurred in multiple remote Navy
installations. NAVFAC provided subject matter expert (SME) support during many of these
contingencies, and documented lessons learned from each.
In addition to ensuring the continuous supply of potable water to DoD personnel, operations often
require the delivery of potable water to communities needing Humanitarian Assistance and
Disaster Relief (HA/DR) support. As an organization, NAVFAC is committed to maintaining a
dependable supply of water even during crisis events. However, it is difficult to predict when and
where failures may occur in the current water supply system. As a result, the U.S. Navy is
susceptible to incurring high costs associated with contingency response and recovery.
The cost comparisons in this report do not include a value for loss of mission capability as a result
of a water contingency. Therefore, the enclosed cost estimates must be considered minimum
values. This report also implies the value of fully resourcing and conducting preventative
maintenance activities. Ongoing preventative maintenance allows for the acquisition and
application of parts, labor, and engineering support to minimize the potential for water
contingencies. In addition, ongoing preventative maintenance and inspections can inform repairs,
maintenance, and future system designs.
EXWC is a recognized Navy SME for water treatment, storage, and distribution systems, including
expeditionary-, shipboard-, and facilities-scale water systems. EXWC’s Seawater Desalination
Test Facility (SDTF), located on Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, CA, provides
expertise on desalination for all branches of service and Navy installations around the world.
NAVFAC, as the supporting agency for base utilities operations, has the opportunity to provide a
holistic approach to ensure the uninterrupted supply of potable water to Navy installations
worldwide. To meet this need in a time of fluctuating budgets, aging infrastructure, and recurring
natural disasters, EXWC SDTF recommends a two-pronged approach: (1) aggressive preventative
maintenance of existing water systems and (2) a tailored contingency response capability for each
installation based on mission criticality.
vi
This page is intentionally left blank.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ V
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................1 1.1 Project Approach .................................................................................................................2 1.2 Seawater Desalination Test Facility Capabilities ................................................................3 1.2.1 SDTF Response to Water Contingency Events ...................................................................3
2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION ...................................................................................................5 2.1 Current Situation ..................................................................................................................5
3.0 ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Possible Contingency Sites ..................................................................................................6 3.2 Contingency Water System Assumptions ............................................................................6
3.3 Baseline Costs for Reactive Contingency Response COAs ................................................6 3.4 Contingency Water Purification System Characteristics .....................................................7
3.5 Reactive Contingency Response COAs ...............................................................................8 3.6 Pre-positioned Water Purification Systems .......................................................................11
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................12
4.1 Facility Contingency Risk Analysis...................................................................................12
4.2 Configuration Management ...............................................................................................12 4.3 Operator Training and Preventative Maintenance .............................................................12
4.4 Further Evaluation of Commercial vs. Navy-owned Contingency Response Systems .....13
GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................15
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................17
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A EXWC HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT IN NAVFAC CONTINGENCY
WATER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B EXISTING DOD AND COMMERCIAL CONTINGENCY WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS ..............................................................................................B-1
APPENDIX C CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................C-1
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Baseline Costs for a Reactive Response COA ...............................................................7
Table 3-2. Navy Expeditionary Water Purification System Characteristics ....................................8 Table 3-3. Relative Costs of Reactive Response with Commercial vs. Navy-owned Systems. ....10
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities .................................... A-3 Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility .......................... A-10
Table C-1. Estimated Daily Production and Time to Replenish Water .......................................C-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Typical Reverse Osmosis System Layout .....................................................................1 Figure 1-2. Individual Water Requirements ....................................................................................2
Figure 1-3. USS Carl Vinson Sailors Fill Water Containers at Port Au Prince, Haiti 2010............4 Figure 1-4. Sailors Aboard USS Carl Vinson Sailors Load Water for Delivery .............................4
Figure C-1. EUWP GEN I ...........................................................................................................C-4
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Department of the Navy (DON) has major installations located around the world. Twenty-two
main installations operate outside the continental United States (OCONUS) and rely on on-base
water processing facilities. These facilities serve a total population of 71,000 military and civilian
personnel, and the water plants have a total production capacity of 15.7 million gallons per day
(Fortenberry and Condit 2018).
Figure 1-1. Typical Reverse Osmosis System Layout
A significant majority of these locations use a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system for water
purification, depicted in Figure 1-1. At many of these installations, the RO systems provide the
only reliable potable water source for personnel. Providing potable water is a critical and core
mission of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC).
The NAVFAC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC) traditionally provides
technical support when U.S. Navy installations face obstacles in supplying potable water. In a
majority of historical cases, depleted water supply issues are caused by component failures. These
failures are often exacerbated by a lack of preventative maintenance and a shortage of backup
components.
In the event of a system failure, contingency solutions typically cause the disruption of work, loss
of mission capability, risk to personnel, and expensive emergency support and capability recovery.
Additionally, when system losses have occurred at Navy installation water plants with no available
contingency solutions, personnel have performed ad-hoc interim emergency repairs which may
cause insufficient water production and high system risk.
2
The ability to deliver clean, healthy, potable water to DoD operational forces is critical to the
effectiveness of U.S. military forces. A slight reduction in the intake of water can leave personnel
incapacitated and ineffective.
Figure 1-2 provides an excerpt from a U.S. Army TARDEC report (Balling 2009) that details the
amount of water one soldier needs. This data further instills the importance of ensuring systems
are maintained and effectively provide clean, potable water to DoD forces at remote installations.
Water weighs ~8.3 pounds per gallon.
3-4% water deficit (2-3 quarts) significantly reduces performance (up to 48%)
6-8% water deficit (4-6 quarts) renders a soldier completely ineffective
Minimum water consumption is 1-3 gallons/soldier/day
Universal unit level average is 6.6 gallons/soldier/day (53 pounds)
Fully developed theater requires 15.6 gallons/soldier/day or 129.5 pounds
Figure 1-2. Individual Water Requirements
1.1 Project Approach
NAVFAC Headquarters sponsored EXWC to evaluate the use of Low Energy Contingency
Desalination (LECD) units to support Navy installations during system failures and water
shortages. This report focuses on the feasibility of deploying desalination systems to remote Navy
installations in the event of a water contingency. EXWC personnel concentrated on the following
areas of interest:
1. Determine the viability of developing portable desalination water assets for remote Navy
installations. These assets would be capable of providing potable water from various
water sources, including ocean and brackish water resources.
2. Identify the risks associated with multiple contingency-response courses of action. The
team conducted two analyses to determine the projected costs, benefits, and risks
associated with (1) continuing the current reactive contingency response process and (2)
having an LECD unit pre-deployed to support emergent contingencies. The team then
compared the costs and benefits between the two approaches.
3
1.2 Seawater Desalination Test Facility Capabilities
The EXWC Seawater Desalination Test Facility (SDTF), located on Naval Base Ventura County
(NBVC) in Port Hueneme, CA, has been operating continuously since its establishment in 1985.
Presently, U.S. Army and Navy civilian personnel operate the SDTF and have over 110 years of
combined technical experience in water treatment system design and operation.
EXWC operates the SDTF in partnership with the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research
Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). This collaboration enables government
personnel to develop lifecycle engineering and logistics knowledge, gain practical experience in
both laboratory and field settings, and conduct training in support of Department of Defense (DoD)
water treatment facilities.
The SDTF performs assessment, design, testing, and fabrication of water purification, packaging,
and distribution systems for expeditionary, shipboard, and facility applications. SDTF personnel
support the full lifecycle of water purification systems, from research and development through
preliminary system design, testing, final design, production, and operational support. This support
covers the development and testing of individual components all the way through fully developed
turn-key water purification plants. The SDTF’s strong working relationships with DoD customers,
water industry and academic researchers, and water industry system suppliers enable personnel to
develop high-performance, reliable, and cost-effective water treatment system solutions for many
applications.
1.2.1 SDTF Response to Water Contingency Events
SDTF personnel have responded to multiple Navy water contingencies from 1990 to 2016, which
are listed in Table A-1 and Table A-2 in APPENDIX A. In a recent example, when Hurricane Irma
struck the lower East Coast in late summer of 2017, the dangerous hurricane necessitated the
evacuation of 3,500 civilian and military personnel from Naval Air Station Key West. During and
after the storm, the base was without power, potable water, and waste-water treatment. While
EXWC promptly responded with SME support, the response was limited by a lack of available
contingency water purification systems.
In addition to the Irma response, EXWC also provided Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster
Relief (HA/DR) support for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts in 2005 and Operation Unified
Response in Haiti in 2010. The Haiti response, in particular, demonstrated the capability of Navy
assets to support HA/DR efforts; the RO system aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-
70) delivered 147,591 gallons of fresh water. Photos from this operation are included as Figure
1-3 and Figure 1-4.
4
Figure 1-3. USS Carl Vinson Sailors Fill Water Containers at Port Au Prince, Haiti 2010
Figure 1-4. Sailors Aboard USS Carl Vinson Sailors Load Water for Delivery
5
2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION
EXWC’s first action was to analyze the problems experienced in providing potable water to Navy
installations. The organization took a systems engineering approach to address these issues.
2.1 Current Situation
Not all Navy Installations have a reliable potable water backup system. As a result, if a water plant
becomes inoperable due to lack of maintenance, breakdown, disaster, or terrorist activity,
significant system downtime could occur, leading the installation to reduce or eliminate critical
services provided to DoD forces. An investigation into the current water supply revealed four
potential root causes which could lead to installation issues:
1. Potable water plant remoteness: The remoteness of some installations, compared to
CONUS sites, leads to higher service costs and impairs the ability of SMEs to service the
water supply systems effectively.
2. Compartmentalization and decentralization: NAVFAC currently allows for regional and
local management and maintenance of the water systems, resulting in a
compartmentalized and decentralized approach. This prevents NAVFAC from
standardizing water systems and thus increases training, maintenance, and supply costs.
3. Costs to operate and maintain existing infrastructure: The maintenance and operating
costs of potable water systems continue to increase. In a fiscally-constrained
environment, budgetary pressures can lead remote installations to defer routine and
critical infrastructure maintenance.
4. Plant operator quality in remote locations: Recruiting highly qualified plant operators,
compensating them appropriately, and enticing them to stay at a remote location is
challenging.
Any combination of these root causes at a remote installation can lead to an aging potable water
system in a state of disrepair and vulnerable to significant downtime.
6
3.0 ANALYSIS
This section estimates the costs of contingency water response activities. For the purposes of this
analysis, we compared three different water contingency response courses of action (COA)
including 1) reactive contingency response with commercial water purification systems leased for
a specific period, 2) reactive contingency response with Navy-owned assets, and 3) proactive pre-
positioning of contingency response assets at each remote installation.
3.1 Possible Contingency Sites
The Navy has approximately twenty-two OCONUS installations which operate an on-site water
treatment facility. The water requirement at these installations ranges from 5,000–160,000 gallons
per day (GPD) with one site requiring 750,000 GPD.
3.2 Contingency Water System Assumptions
The following assumptions were established to underpin this analysis:
1. Contingency water purification equipment will be used up to 90 days, including critical
spares and consumables.
2. Water contingencies necessitating support are on overseas U.S. Navy bases only.
3. NAVFAC Public Works (PW) or other local personnel would determine the placement
and infrastructure needs to interface with contingency water purification equipment.
4. Contingency water demand will be 50% of a 50 gallon per person per day baseline
requirement: for essential use only.
5. Contingency water systems will be able to treat fresh, brackish, and seawater sources.
6. Local operators can be trained to operate contingency response systems.
7. Water systems will be containerized to facilitate transportation.
8. Material handling equipment will be available at base locations to offload and position
equipment.
3.3 Baseline Costs for Reactive Contingency Response COAs
Table 3-1 depicts the estimated labor hours and costs for a reactive response COA. A labor rate of
$125 per hour is assumed for the purposes of this calculation.
7
Table 3-1. Baseline Costs for a Reactive Response COA
3.4 Contingency Water Purification System Characteristics
Table 3-2 provides details and cost estimates for three different types of government-owned water
purification systems, including the legacy 600 gallons per hour (GPH) Reverse Osmosis Water
Production Unit (ROWPU), notional 600 GPH ROWPU-Enhanced (notional system with
estimated capabilities), and demonstrated prototype 3K GPH Tactical Water Purification System
(TWPS).
8
Table 3-2. Navy Expeditionary Water Purification System Characteristics
3.5 Reactive Contingency Response COAs
Here we consider two reactive contingency response scenarios. In COA-1, government personnel
respond to a contingency with leased commercial water purification systems. A variety of
containerized/deployable water purification systems are available from commercial suppliers, in a
range of capacities and costs. This COA is lease-based and requires no capital investment in
purification systems or ongoing maintenance to ensure system availability; however, response time
may be impacted as this COA will require the execution of a contract or lease agreement and time
by the supplier to prepare the unit for mobilization. Commercially available water purification
systems range in capacity from 2,000–288,000 GPD at associated lease costs of approximately
$2,500–$30,000 per month.
In COA-2, government personnel respond to a contingency with Navy-owned and maintained
contingency water purification systems. This COA incurs a capital investment cost and ongoing
maintenance costs to ensure system readiness; however, this COA has the benefit of immediately
available systems for response activities. For the purposes of COA-2 we consider a contingency
response kit consisting two 3K-TWPS units and four 600 ROWPU-Enhanced units at a total
approximate cost of $1.8M. This set of systems allows for scaled contingency response ranging
from 16,000–160,000 GPD of production capability from worst-case raw seawater sources
9
(25,000–220,000 GPD from freshwater), and is capable of supporting contingencies at all remote
installations apart from the location requiring 750,000 GPD.
Table 3-3 shows a cost comparison of the reactive response COAs using leased commercial
systems and Navy-owned contingency response assets. The scenarios were based on randomly
selected installations at contingency rates of one-to-five occurrences in a ten-year period.
Commercial systems were selected to match the demand at the randomly selected installations for
each contingency. Costs are considered on a net-present-value basis assuming 3% inflation. Both
COAs incur the $283,750 baseline cost articulated in Table 3-1. COA-1 (commercial) costs are
based on manufacturer-provided lease rates for systems identified to support contingency
requirements the randomly selected installations. COA-2 (Navy) costs include initial capital costs
of $1.8M for the contingency response systems as well as a $90,000 per year annual maintenance
cost (equating to 5% of the system value).
The comparative analysis reveals that COA-2, the Navy-owned response capability, costs
anywhere from $1.85M to $2.4M more than the equivalent commercial response. This is due to
the initial capital cost of the systems as well as the recurring maintenance costs over the ten-year
period.
10
Table 3-3. Relative Costs of Reactive Response with Commercial vs. Navy-owned Systems.
11
3.6 Pre-positioned Water Purification Systems
COA-3 involves pre-positioned contingency purification systems that are integrated with the
existing infrastructure and which can be employed immediately by local plant operators. While
this provides immediate response capability, the cost to realize this COA is extremely expensive.
Based on the water demand at each of the twenty-two installations, outfitting them with appropriate
contingency systems would require the procurement of fifty-two 3K-TWPS and forty-three 600
ROWPU-E units at an initial capital cost of $37.5M. This COA would also incur a $1.875M/yr
expense assuming a 5% cost for ongoing maintenance.
12
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the previous comparative analysis
as well as SDTF personnel experience from supporting multiple contingency response operations.
4.1 Facility Contingency Risk Analysis
This analysis considered only the direct costs of contingency response and did not consider the
value of the loss of mission capability incurred by a water contingency. Pre-positioning water
contingency response equipment is extremely expensive; however, it provides immediate and
comprehensive contingency response capability. At some installations, capability loss due to a
water contingency may be unacceptable and worth the cost of installing and maintaining a
dedicated contingency response system. For these installations, we recommend simple and robust
systems based on the design principles employed in the 3K-TWPS prototype system and the
reverse osmosis seawater desalination system developed for Naval Base Ventura County, San
Nicolas Island.
To minimize mission risk to the Navy, we recommend a risk assessment of the installations
considered in this analysis to determine which locations merit on-site contingency response
capability.
4.2 Configuration Management
Each individual water plant at an OCONUS Navy installation is a site-specific design, with little-
to-no consistency around the world. As such, it is very challenging to obtain comprehensive plant
configuration management information to inform contingency response operations and
recommended inventory levels for critical spare parts.
To help maximize plant readiness and minimize the risk of water contingencies, we recommend a
configuration audit of remote Navy water purification infrastructure and the establishment of a
centralized configuration management database for this critical infrastructure. This will aid in the
identification of critical spare parts and significantly streamline contingency response activities.
4.3 Operator Training and Preventative Maintenance
We should maximize readiness and minimize preventable contingencies by conducting
preventative maintenance and modernization of the existing water purification infrastructure. To
this end, we must ensure that all plant operators have the necessary training and qualifications to
safely and effectively operate and maintain the water treatment facilities. In addition, we
recommend the establishment of a globally available water system reach-back capability and help-
desk for remote plant operators. Establishing this relationship and support mechanism would
enhance plant operators’ ability to operate and maintain their systems, and would streamline
support activities in the event of a contingency. To quantify the benefits of enhanced maintenance,
we recommend a follow-on analysis of increased system maintenance levels and their projected
effect on system reliability and contingency response requirements.
13
4.4 Further Evaluation of Commercial vs. Navy-owned Contingency Response Systems
Lastly, we recommend a continuation of this analysis to further explore the differences between
COA-1 and COA-2—commercial system response versus Navy-owned system response. There
are additional variables to explore such as the relative difference in response time, incidental
availability of commercial systems, ability to establish contracts and lease agreements, and second-
order benefits of Navy-owned capability.
14
This page is intentionally left blank.
15
GLOSSARY
DoD Department of Defense
ESC Engineering Service Center
EUWP Expeditionary Unit Water Purifier
EXWC Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center
FOB Forward Operating Base
GTMO Guantanamo Bay
GPD Gallons per Day
GPH Gallons per Hour
GPM Gallons per Minute
HA/DR Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
kWh/kgal Kilowatt Hours per Kilo Gallons
LECD Low Energy Contingency Desalination
MGD Millions of Gallons per Day
MUSE Mobile Utilities and Support Equipment
NALF Naval Auxiliary Landing Field
NAS Naval Air Station
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NBVC Naval Base Ventura County
NCEL Naval Civil Engineering Lab
NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
ONR Office of Naval Research
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
RO Reverse Osmosis
ROWPU Reverse Osmosis Water Production Unit
SDTF Seawater Desalination Test Facility
SME Subject Matter Expert
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SOW Statement of Work
TARDEC Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center
TWPS Tactical Water Purification System
USN United States Navy
16
This page is intentionally left blank.
17
REFERENCES
Balling, Frederick, ed. 2009. Army Potable Water Treatment Units. U.S. Army Tank Automotive
Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wb-wws-wss09-pres3_284554_7.pdf
Fortenberry, Josh and Wendy Condit. 2018. “Navy Water Systems Inventory.” Unpublished
special publication.
18
This page is intentionally left blank.
A-1
APPENDIX A
EXWC HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT IN NAVFAC CONTINGENCY
WATER OPERATIONS
A-2
A.1 Overview
This appendix contains information on EXWC’s involvement in supporting water plant systems
for NAVFAC. Table A-1 contains information for multiple locations. Table A-2 focuses on a
major effort to rebuild the Reverse Osmosis plant at the San Nicolas Island Outlying Landing
Field.
A-3
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2016 Flint,
Michigan $2,000 CNO
Lead contamination in potable water
system due to leaching in water lines.
Raw water supply was corrosive because
it was untreated. The acidic water
leached the lead out of the water
distribution piping system.
Provided technical consulting
over E-mail with several
options. Technical input with
alternatives using RO
technology.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing
2015 GTMO $13,500 NAVFAC SE
High pressure pump failed, resulting in a
deficiency of 100,000 gallons per day of
potable water supply. GTMO requested
technical support for the RO operators.
EXWC staff set up and
operated 3K GPH ROWPU
units. EXWC provided
technical support regarding
the training of U.S. Army
units to GTMO staff and a
site survey of the RO Plant.
In addition, technical input
and options for execution
were provided during the
decision making process.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing
2015
Camp
Lemonier,
Djibouti,
Africa
$2,000 OPS
RO Plant system failure to PLC
controller. Requested technical
assistance getting it back on-line.
Provided technical consulting
over phone.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing
A-4
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2014 NAS
Sigonella $5,000
CNO,
NAVFAC
LANT
The Operator in Charge of NAS I and
NAS II Water Plants needed operational
support.
EXWC assessed an inquiry
for literature review of two
water plants. EXWC
reviewed the Public Works
Department’s SOP's for both
NAS I and NAS II Water
Plants. EXWC assessment
was needed to tighten up
existing documents and
complete the administrative
portion of the SOPs. Efforts
also included a review of
drinking water deficiencies
and other recommendations
to the Situation Reports and
Fitness Reports, as needed.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing
A-5
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2013 GTMO $5,000 NAVFAC SE
System failure on the high pressure
pump on RO train and well failure.
Needed recommendations on alternatives
for a replacement water resource.
EXWC provided an analysis
of technical alternatives to
high pressure pump and well
system failure. EXWC
provided a course of action
with options for NAVFAC
leadership to consider. A
technical summary of the
alternatives analysis was
provided and included short-
term and long-term options.
Bill
Varnava,
Joseph M
Saenz
(Manny)
2012 NAS
Sigonella $17,000
NAVFAC
LANT
Numerous failed water resource
infrastructure components (2 RO Plants,
3 water treatment plants, and wells), lack
of documentation, and poor maintenance,
which lead to system failure.
Performed well site
inspections; reviewed and
updated SOPs; reviewed
system operating data and
performance; performed plan
inspections; and repaired
plant and facility
infrastructure. Performed
trouble shooting and repairs
and conducted training.
Reviewed corrosion control
design and operational plan.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing,
Mark
Silbernagel,
A-6
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2010 Haiti $100,000 CNO Provide potable water to earthquake
survivors.
The NAVFAC Engineering
Service Center (ESC), now
EXWC, and TARDEC were
tasked with refurbishing,
repairing, and replenishing
the Expeditionary Unit Water
Purifiers (EUWPs), and
prepare for deployment. The
EUWPs were not sent to Haiti
due to a change in mission
status.
Bill Varnava,
Mark Miller,
Micah Ing,
Joseph M
Saenz
(Manny)
2009
NALF San
Clemente
Island
$18,500 NAVFAC SW
OPS
NAVFAC Southwest (SW) requested an
evaluation to install water resource
infrastructure for RO, intake, and wells.
The purpose of this water resource
exploration effort was to identify and site
potential proven water resource
technologies.
NAVFAC ESC provided
guidance on proven water
resource technologies related
to the use of an RO potable
water unit. Findings were
based on the evaluation of
technical literature, geologic
maps, topographical maps,
aerial photographs, and
satellite images, including a
field effort. A planning report
was produced.
Joseph M
Saenz
(Manny),
Kimo Zaiger,
Bill Varnava,
Bryan Long
A-7
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2008
Navy Base
Diego
Garcia
$5,000 NAVFAC
PAC
Groundwater was contaminated with
Trihalomethanes (THMs) and other
disinfection by-products. Groundwater
needed to be treated.
NAVFAC ESC provided a
technical review of the
situation and presented
alternative solutions. ESC
reviewed MILCON design
for proposed membrane
treatment plant.
Bill Varnava
2008
U.S. Army
- IRAQ
Camp
Anaconda,
FOB Delta
Al Kut
$150,000 CENTCOM
U.S. ARMY
U.S. Army needed technical assistance in
commission and operation of water
packaging plants.
EXWC provided field support
to the water packaging
systems. Systems set-up,
maintenance, and system
operations were performed by
ESC onsite.
Bill
Varnava,
Micah Ing
2006
Camp
Lemonier,
Djibouti,
Africa
$285,000
CENTCOM,
U.S. MARINE
CORPS
Experienced impact of drought. Twelve
deep dry holes (+800 feet below ground
surface) drilled in the area. RO Plant was
producing non-potable water. Required
well siting and RO Plant inspection of
well field. Leaking RO plant and well
water resource infrastructure.
Over several field efforts, the
RO facility and associated
well field were assessed. The
brine water outfall was also
evaluated and described as a
trench offsite. Wells
supporting the RO facility
were assessed and found to be
leaking and contained high
saline water concentrations.
A report was completed.
Joseph M
Saenz
(Manny) and
Ennie Lory
A-8
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2006
NEA Bay
Indian
Reserva-
tion,
Washing-
ton, United
States
$25,000 U.S. Office of
Public Health
Emergency response to replenish water
supply at NEA Bay Indian Reservation.
The reservation was under drought
conditions and needed a way to replenish
storage tanks.
NAVFAC ESC provided
input and spares for unit
deployment. TARDEC set up
and deployed one 100,000
GPD EUWP developed by
the Office of Naval Research
(ONR). The EUWP was
shipped from Port Hueneme,
CA to the NEA Bay Indian
Reservation.
Bill Varnava,
Mark Miller
2005
Hurricane
Katrina
Response
$100,000 CNO, FEMA
Emergency response to Hurricane
Katrina that disrupted the potable water
supply to southern and southeastern,
United States.
NAVFAC ESC set up and
deployed two 100,000 GPD
EUWP, developed by ONR.
The EUWP was sent to
Pascagoula, Mississippi and
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ted Kueper,
Bill Varnava,
Micah Ing,
Mark
Silbernagel,
Mark Miller
A-9
Table A-1. EXWC Support to Other Shore Water Treatment Facilities
EXWC
Project
Support
(Year)
Location
EXWC
Support
Cost
Original
Client
Request
(CNO, OPS,
FAC, PW)
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD
Technical
Staff
Providing
Support
2004
U.S. Coast
Guard, Port
Clarence,
Alaska
$50,000 ONR
Emergency response to replenish water
supply. The storm conditions fouled the
water supply and melt ponds were
contaminated. The facility needed a way
to replenish storage tanks.
NAVFAC ESC and
TARDEC provided input and
provided spares for unit
deployment. TARDEC set up
and deployed one 100,000
GPD EUWP developed by
ONR.
Mark Miller,
Mark
Silbernagel
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST $778,000
Note: Table Revised 3-19-2018.
A-10
Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility
EXWC /
ESC
Project
Support
(Year)
Overall
Estimated
Total Cost
to Build
or Repair
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD Technical
Staff Providing
Support
2012 -
2015 $830,000
Customer needed to increase water production,
improve efficiency, and reduce maintenance. Customer
was constrained with the existing electrical
infrastructure and brine water discharge amount. The
old plant was plagued with multiple maintenance and
operational issues. The plant was aging and described
corrosive leaking. As a result, the customer asked
EXWC SDTF personnel to provide new options. The
best option selected was to upgrade the old
infrastructure with a new RO Plant.
EXWC SDTF staff designed, built,
and installed a new RO Plant with
two trains and a multimedia cartridge
filter. Each train can produce 21,000
gallons of potable water per day. The
new plant operated with a higher
system recovery of 42%, which
reduces the brine discharge by 50%.
Bill Varnava,
Micah Ing, Mark
Silbernagel, Mark
Miller
2007-
2009 $1,200,000
Customer requested the phase two for the installation
of a seawater intake well field. Customer needed to
increase raw water production and install new water
distribution lines between the well field and RO Plant.
NAVFAC ESC assisted NAVFAC
SW PW and NBVC in writing a
detailed Independent Government
Estimate, Scope of Work, Statement
of Work. ESC participated in
negotiations for selecting the Prime
Contractor. Seven new saltwater
intake wells were designed, sited, and
installed at Coast Guard Beach.
NAVFAC ESC provided project
oversight. Combined, old and new
wells totaled to 15 seawater intake
wells.
Joseph M Saenz
(Manny)
A-11
Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility
EXWC /
ESC
Project
Support
(Year)
Overall
Estimated
Total Cost
to Build
or Repair
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD Technical
Staff Providing
Support
2007-
2009 -
Seawater wells were fouling due to iron-forming
bacteria growing within the seawater intake well field,
on ground submersible pumps, water distribution lines,
and transmission lines, thus causing the RO filters to
clog. An iron forming bacteria assessment report was
completed.
NAVFAC ESC provided technical
field support for developing and re-
developing the existing wells that
were providing a raw water resource
to the RO Plant. Specific well
development protocols were updated
for these field efforts.
Joseph M Saenz
(Manny)
A-12
Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility
EXWC /
ESC
Project
Support
(Year)
Overall
Estimated
Total Cost
to Build
or Repair
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD Technical
Staff Providing
Support
2006-
2007 -
USN was informed that the existing brine water line
south of a rock structure could no long be used by the
County of Ventura and U.S. Navy Environmental
Department. The existing leach field was not working
properly due to a decrease in sediment percolation
rates, causing brine water to pond up and form a lake.
Staff built a new 400-foot perforated leach that was
installed subsurface on the north side of the jetty by
SNI personnel, without engineering support. The
NBVC Public Works Department requested support
for brine discharge line modeling efforts along north
side of rock wall at Coast Guard Beach.
NAVFAC ESC compiled and
synthesized historical data and
conducted a field survey, followed by
cross-section development on north
side of rock structure. Selected
discharge rates and concentrations for
modeling efforts showing existing
brine water discharge line goals could
not be met. New cross sections were
developed for the South Side.
Detailed geologic cross sections were
constructed at Coast Guard Beach.
North beach flow iterations were
completed and models suggested the
location of brine water discharge
technology couldn’t meet goals. ESC
submitted five technical reports to
Public Works. ESC provided support
for well development efforts.
Specific well development tools were
created for these field efforts.
Joseph M Saenz
(Manny)
A-13
Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility
EXWC /
ESC
Project
Support
(Year)
Overall
Estimated
Total Cost
to Build
or Repair
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD Technical
Staff Providing
Support
2003 $86,000
In June 2003 a water shortage at San Nicolas Island
resulted in the high potential for shutting down island
operations. Raw water production was isolated to one
well. Critical personnel were instructed to remain on
the island and non-essential personnel were sent to
mainland. In September 2003, NAVAIR (Joel Tules)
issued an Urgency Justification to move forward with
the installation of new water resource infrastructure on
San Nicolas Island.
NAVFAC ESC designed, sited, and
selected well drilling and
development technologies, including
construction materials for the
installation of 8 Saltwater Intake
Wells. ESC selected drilling methods
and well construction materials
during the construction phase of the
project. ESC developed an SOW and
Independent Government Estimate in
order to select a drilling contractor.
Joseph M Saenz
(Manny),Tim
McEntee
1994 $250,000
Customer needed a treatment plant for surface water at
SNI. ESC designed and installed the plant to meet the
surface water treatment rules in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines.
The Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center (NFESC) designed,
built and installed a surface water
treatment plant to meet the surface
water treatment rule.
Ted Kueper, Mark
Silbernagel, Bill
Varnava
A-14
Table A-2. EXWC Support to San Nicolas Island Water Treatment Facility
EXWC /
ESC
Project
Support
(Year)
Overall
Estimated
Total Cost
to Build
or Repair
Customer Challenges EXWC Project Description
DoD Technical
Staff Providing
Support
1990 $150,000
Under drought conditions, barging water was the most
reliable means of providing a potable water supply to
USN staff. Personnel wanted a more reliable source of
potable water. The Naval Civil Engineering Lab
(NCEL) provided technical and design support to
install a new RO Plant.
NCEL modified, installed, and
commissioned two 600 GPH
ROWPUs to provide potable water.
Each ROWPU was capable of
producing 10 GPM of potable water
and used media cartridge filter
pretreatment. The ROWPUs
eliminated the need to barge potable
water and were in operation from
1990 to 2001 at which time they were
replaced with 2 commercial RO
systems built by Parker Village
Marine, formerly Village Marine Tec.
NCEL and NFESC provided technical
support to SNI and Public Works on
the RO plant from 1990 to 2001.
Ted Kueper, Mark
Silbernagel,
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST $2,666,000
Note: Table Revised 3-19-2018.
B-1
APPENDIX B
EXISTING DOD AND COMMERCIAL CONTINGENCY WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
B-2
B.1 United States Army and Navy 3K TWPS
The United States Army Tank and Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center
(TARDEC) tasked EXWC with developing a new prototype design for a 3,000 gallons per hour
(3K) Tactical Water Purification System. The EXWC Seawater Desalination Test Facility (SDTF)
utilized its expertise in the desalination field to complete an in-house design. The SDTF conducted
component tests on media and cartridge filter configurations, designed and built breadboard
prototype units, and incorporated its best practices from lessons learned from fielded expeditionary
units. The successful design included:
Media Filter Housing (custom design)
Cartridge Filter Housing (custom design)
Enhanced Energy Recovery System
Compact layout inside a 20-foot International Standards Organization (ISO) Container
The design process included multiple tests on the media and cartridge filters and an endurance test
on the breadboard design that lasted over 2,000 hours. The unit is capable of producing 72,000
GPD from a fresh water source and 50,000 GPD from a sea water source.
The research and development on the 3K-TWPS is exemplary of the work that the SDTF performs
on a continuous basis. The overall unit size, construction, and throughput is ideal for what is
needed for water support contingency effort.
B.2 Commercially Available Contingency Response Systems
There are a few private companies, such as GE ZENON and Seven Seas Water, which will lease
containerized RO plants with capacities up to 288,000 gallons per day. To-date, private industry
has indicated that these RO products require a minimum of a 2-year lease period or demand the
government buy the water produced for a specific rate. This specific rate is estimated to be $6
million for a 2-year period.
Alternatively, NAVFAC could purchase and preposition RO plants capable of producing 50,000
to 200,000 gallons of potable water per day at various locations. These units could be stored with
the Mobile Utilities and Support Equipment (MUSE) generators and teams could be trained to
operate and maintain the units. The teams would link the water and power units to provide a rapid
response capability. The use of MUSE generators is a long-term solution that would enable
proactive responses to system failures or other instances. Efficient planning and coordination in
advance would result in positive results in the event of a crisis.
C-1
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDIES
C-2
C.1 Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti
The single water facility at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti supplies approximately 400,000 gallons
of potable water per day. The installation uses the produced water for drinking, sanitary flushing,
galley operations, and firefighting. The operation of the facility relies on an automated control
system centralized through a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). In November 2015, the water
facility was powered down to prevent damage during a routine change in the power supply
configuration for the base. When the water facility was re-energized, normal operations could not
be restored. It was determined that the analog control board portion of the PLC had short-circuited
and this resulted in a loss of the programmable logic program.
The technical after action report noted the following issues:
1. The need for a comprehensive assessment and inventory of high-risk components.
2. The location and currency of spare parts.
3. A lack of identifiable subject matter experts.
In response, the technical after action report recommended the following actions:
1. Implement an inventory database with a preventative maintenance schedule.
2. Itemize and procure critical spare parts.
3. Provide a source on standby technical assistance/support for critical utilities.
The after action report and subsequent recommendations are indicative of typical and frequent
emergency water system outages.
C.2 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
In April 2013, the water processing facility at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) had a reduction in
process capability. Two of the six RO water processing trains went offline and the water facility
was unable to meet the water supply demand. Mechanical issues impacting five of the large water
plant intake pumps (880 GPM each) caused the diminished capability.
The water demand for GTMO is approximately 1.05 million gallons per day (MGD), which
supports the base population of about 5,000 personnel. The remaining operational RO systems
were only able to produce 800,000 GPD, leaving a deficit of about 200,000 gallons per day. The
total potable water storage capacity at GTMO is around 11 million gallons, but, due to the issues
with the RO system, the total stored water was reduced to approximately 6.5 million gallons.
The drop in reserve storage capacity occurred over a 30-day period that resulted in a critical water
issue the following month. To meet the demand and replenish the water storage, GTMO would
have needed an additional 200,000 GPD of potable water production.
To replenish the water storage capacity at GTMO (11 million gallons), approximately 4.5 million
gallons of fresh water needed to be produced.
C-3
To meet this demand, the Tactical Water Purification Systems (TWPS) and appropriate military
units were needed to support. The TWPS is the primary water system used by the military and it
can produce approximately 1,200 GPH from sea water sources. Assuming a daily mission run time
of 20 hours per day times 1,200 GPH results in a daily production of 24,000 GPD.
Table C-1 provides the estimated time to replenish 4.5 million gallons of water.
Table C-1. Estimated Daily Production and Time to Replenish Water
Number of TWPS Daily Production (GPD) Time to Replenish Supply
(Days)
6 144,000 30
8 192,000 24
10 240,000 19
12 288,000 15
C.3 Reconditioning, Refurbishing, and Deploying the EUWP GEN I
The Expeditionary Unit Water Purifier (EUWP) GEN I was a prototype technology demonstrator
built by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in 2005. It consists of an ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis skid capable of producing 100,000 GPD of fresh water from a seawater source. The
Bureau of Reclamation currently owns the 2 remaining EUWP GEN I units. One was previously
located at the Seawater Desalination Test Facility at EXWC in Port Hueneme, CA and the other
unit was in Alamogordo, NM with the Bureau of Reclamation’s brackish ground national
desalination research facility (BGNDRF) facility.
The EXWC unit was reconditioned and set up for deployment in January 2010 to support the Haiti
Earthquake relief, however it was not deployed in theater due to its large logistics footprint,
specialized training required, and ability to handle and store a sufficient water supply. Since this
event, the unit has not been operated or maintained. The EUWP GEN I unit stored in Alamogordo
has suffered several years of wear and tear, and its current condition is unknown.
Reconditioning, repairing, and resupplying the EUWP GEN I to support a mission would take
significant effort and time, costing approximately $250K to $300K to refurbish, repair, resupply,
and deploy a civilian team in theater for 30 days. Additionally, as the EUWP GEN I were originally
prototypes, the spare parts and logistics chain needed to support unit does not exist. There are also
only a handful of government representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Navy and
U.S. Army that know how to operate EUWP GEN I. Personnel from Parker Village Marine,
formerly Village Marine Tec, who built and designed the EUWP units in 2003, are no longer with
the company.
C-4
The high cost of repair and deployment, the lack of spare parts, and the diminished number of
knowledgeable operators make the EUWP GEN I not viable for use in a mission.
Figure C-1. EUWP GEN I